In New Zealand, career education is strategically located, actively
bridging the gap between compulsory education and the social and
economic world (Ministry of Education, 2003). Yet is it possible for
career education to prepare students for the vagaries of an uncertain
world in a socially just way (Irving & Raja, 1998) without providing
a critical understanding of how social, political and economic
discourses impact on constructions of career, inform career education,
and shape our senses) of identity? This question should be at the heart
of the debate concerning the purpose of career education and role of the
career educator (Irving, 2005). However, our understanding of career
education is clouded by its tendency to be driven pragmatically in
response to government policy initiatives focused on economic
requirements (Ruff, 2001), and further exacerbated by its lack of
theoretical grounding (Harris, 1999).

In this article I explore the concept of career education, and
relate it to a critical model of social justice. Three key findings that
emerged from my small-scale qualitative study are then discussed. My
conclusion draws the diverse strands of the literature and empirical
data together. While acknowledging the limitations of the study, when
considered alongside the literature, the findings provide career
educators with opportunities to critically reflect on, and explore their
own understanding of social justice and to examine how this informs
their localised programs and practices.

LOCATING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN CAREER EDUCATION PRACTICE: THE
LITERATURE

Social justice is a slippery concept (Griffiths, 1998), open to
multiple interpretations (Espinoza, 2007), and often loosely defined
(Sandretto, 2004). To address this, I have chosen to work with a
critical social justice model that goes beyond concerns with simple
inequalities. Critical social justice encompasses an understanding of
our senses) of individual and collective identity, reflecting the
multiple ways in which we are positioned, position ourselves and
perceive others. It is concerned with: what it means to be a New Zealand
citizen; our sense of cultural belonging; our place within the world;
how we frame our 'career(s)'; and how we construct our hues
(Young, 1990). This model provides a holistic and inclusive
understanding, linking together social, political and economic aspects
(Gale & Densmore, 2003). Integrating cultural recognition with
redistribution (Gewirtz, 1998; Young, 1990), and advocating a dialogical approach (Young, 1995), it allows for members of all socially and
culturally constituted groups to engage in discussion about, and
critique of, their own practices and the practices of others (Parekh,
2000; Parker-Jenkins, Hartas & Irving, 2005), particularly those of
the dominant culture.

So what does this mean for the development and delivery of career
education? Patton and McMahon (2006) note that the concept of career not
only lacks an agreed definition, but is ambiguous and differentially
understood, with one theorist arguing that the term should be abandoned
altogether (Richardson, 1993). This problem is exacerbated when
considered in relation to the broader concept of career education, as
this curriculum area is not only under-researched but also contested
(Harris, 1999) and subject to multiple meanings and interpretations
(Barnes, 2004; Vaughan & Gardiner, 2007). It is often conjoined with
career guidance, presented as an adjunct of career counselling, or
simply subsumed into a career development model (see Ministry of
Education, 2003). The paucity of existing literature and research in the
career education field (as opposed to career counselling), and lack of
attention paid to issues of (in)equality or social justice, is also of
concern. As Guichard (2001) observes, '[career education] practices
only rarely aim at enhancing equality of opportunity, of lessening
social inequity or enhancing collective development actions ... [it
focuses] on the individual [and] tends to ignore society or
community' (p. 166, original emphasis).

In New Zealand, Careers Services Rapuara provide the following
definitions of career and career education (2007, p.2, emphasis added):

Career: The sequence and variety of an individual's paid and
unpaid work roles over a lifetime. More broadly it includes life roles,
leisure activities, learning and work.

Career education: Planned learning experiences that help students
to develop the understanding, skills and attitudes that will assist them
to make informed choices and decisions about study and/or work options,
and to participate effectively in work and society.

These definitions position career as a holistic life concept, with
career education focused not only on learning/work management, but also
preparation for social participation (Irving, 2009). However, in
practice, career education privileges the learning and work aspects (see
Careers Services Rapuara, 2007), reflecting a career development bias.
Within this bias, the individual occupies the centre-ground, where
self-awareness, employability skills, the acquisition of qualifications
and the need to become a lifelong learner are vaunted as the answer to
social and economic exclusion. This model feeds into a neoliberal discourse, where primacy is given to economic imperatives in response to
the demands of a global economy (Apple, 2007; Hyslop-Margison & Ayaz
Naseem, 2007), underpinned by notions of personal responsibility and
free choice (Plant, 2005). Opportunity for critical reflection about the
world of work, and examination of 'career' as an evolving
sociopolitical construction is restricted, with discussion deflected
away from social justice concerns (Hyslop-Margison & McKerracher,
2008). Social divisions in relation to the ascription of value to paid
and non-paid activity (Peavey, 2001), cultural differences and
expectations (Malik & Aguado, 2005) and structural inequalities
(Roberts, 2005) remain hidden. Moreover, while 'official'
career education policy documents make reference to 'equality'
and 'diversity' (Ministry of Education, 2003), these lack
coherent expansion and articulation, positioned as challenges for
individuals and families (Education Review Office, 2006). There is
little discussion about the interconnectedness of social class, race,
ethnicity and gender in the distribution of opportunities, why
discrimination occurs, nor how it can be exposed, questioned and
challenged.

Career educators themselves are not immune from wider debates
concerning the need for education to respond positively to the demands
of a competitive global marketplace (Lauder & Brown, 2007), to
promote 'appropriate' attitudes to lifelong learning and work
(Coney, 2000) and to return to 'traditional' knowledge, values
and discipline (Apple, 2000). As McIlveen and Patton (2006) observe,
there has been little critical discussion of, or reflection on, career
development practice from within the profession. This, they contend, has
led many career practitioners to 'become unwitting or complicit instruments of a broader economic and political discourse' (p. 15).
Questions about the extent to which career education connects with, and
builds on, other more critical aspects of the social curriculum have
also been identified (Hyslop-Margison & McKerracher, 2008; Irving,
2005).

Therefore, if career education is to be located within a critical
social justice framework, it will require the development of a
curriculum that is socially inclusive, culturally sensitive and
politically dynamic (Irving & Marris, 2002). A shift in thinking
will be required, moving away from a career development focus on
preparation for work (Careers Services Rapuara, 2007), towards a
philosophy that fosters critical insights into how social, political and
economic discourses position and shape concepts of self, work, career,
opportunity and justice. Providing students with learning experiences
that contribute to an understanding of their future roles as creative,
dynamic and democratic citizens and workers (Apple, 2000) also
contributes to greater individual and collective empowerment (Irving
& Parker-Jenkins, 1995), as they become aware of their right to
accept, question, challenge or reject the values (in part or in full)
that inform such concepts.

CHALLENGING METHODOLOGY INFORMING METHOD

This study is positioned within a critical post-structural
perspective that seeks to deconstruct and disrupt common sense
explanations of the world (Lather, 1992). Emphasis is placed on ways in
which the interplay between knowledge(s) and power is implicated in the
production of meanings and the shaping of identities (Foucault, 1980);
how the process and practice of schooling contributes to knowledge
constructions) (Kincheloe, 2008); and how this impacts on career
education (Hyslop-Margison & McKerracher, 2008). A qualitative
approach was used, as this provides 'richer and more finely nuanced
accounts of human action' (Gergen & Gergen, 2000, p. 578).
Following post-structural feminist conventions (Jones, 1992), I have
written myself into the text as, when we write reflexively, it is not
about an 'other' but a representation of our
'selves', our own understandings, and how we ascribe meanings.
Thus, the research is a product of my own discursive practices and
cannot be assumed to be the 'right' or 'only'
reading of the data (Peters, 2004).

Leigh (a pseudonym), my participant in this study, is responsible
for career education in a secondary school with a significant population
of Pasifika students, located in a provincial New Zealand city. She was
a willing participant, commenting that career education was
under-researched and under-valued. An information sheet was provided in
advance of the interview clarifying the aims of the study, and making
her aware that she was free to withdraw consent at any point. This
ameliorated the 'formal' informed consent process where we
discussed how her rights would be safeguarded (Davidson & Tolich,
2003) and her anonymity protected, agreed on the format for the
interview, and negotiated the use of the data (Cameron, 2001).

Rather than a search for 'truth', the research interview
could be more accurately regarded as a partial representation which is
contextually specific (McMahon & Watson, 2007), reflecting the
participant's positioning within multiple discourses (Powers, 1996)
and ascription of meanings to the questions posed (Cameron, 2001).
Leigh's taped interview lasted for one hour, and focused on how
social justice was understood by the participant and located in her
career education practice. Using a semi-structured interview allowed me
to locate my questions within an overall framework, yet provided
opportunity for breadth of discussion. I transcribed the interview in
full as this enabled me to re-engage with the data and, before analysis,
a copy was given to Leigh to check it was a fair representation.

Critical discourse analysis was used to identify the dominant
themes and refine the findings that emerged from the empirical data.
Here, text (and talk) is viewed as a situated whole. It helps identify
the ideological dimensions contained within multiple discourses, and
contributes to the uncovering of multiple agendas (Cameron, 2001).
Relating the findings to the literature enables the researcher 'to
provide detailed analysis of cultural voices and texts in local
educational sites, while attempting to connect these theoretically and
empirically with an understanding of power and ideology in broader
social functions and configurations' (Luke, 1998, p. 53).

The small scale of the study limits the scope of the findings as
they represent a localised event. However, this research seeks to
stimulate debate about the future of career education, the role of
career educators and the location of social justice.

EXPLORING THE KEY FINDINGS

From multiple readings of the transcript, three key findings
emerged: sense-of-self social class and equality of opportunity; and
parents, pacific culture and opportunity. These particularly reflect my
research question, that is, how is the concept of social justice
understood and located in career education? All of the extracts below
are taken from my interview with Leigh.

Sense-Of-Self

Increasingly, career education has been subsumed into a career
development model that places significant emphasis on self-awareness and
individual responsibility (McMahon, Patton & Tatham, 2003). Couched
within a humanist discourse, the individual is positioned as having a
stable identity, being the conscious author of their own destiny, and
free to make rational immediate and long-term choices. Moreover,
individuals are encouraged to seek to achieve self-actualisation through
careers, whereby they can realise and release their inner potential and
attain self-fulfilment (Sinclair & Monk, 2005). Inequality thus
falls into an apolitical void (Walshaw, 2007), cast as an outcome of
individual fate and tragedy, presented as a challenge that we must
strive to overcome through a levelling of the playing field (Riley,
1994). Beneath this seemingly apolitical representation of self, a
neoliberal discourse pervades that holds individuals personally
responsible for their economic wellbeing. Alongside this is a view that
all citizens have a moral obligation to participate in the labour market
(Higgins & Nairn, 2006), 'to invest themselves in a lifelong
process of learning or re-skilling to get or retain any kind of
job' (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 2). This reflects Foucault's notion
of ways in which technologies of the self can act as forms of
self-surveillance, enabling the state to extend its power to control in
covert ways as official discourses become normalised (Hall, 2001).

Leigh talks at great length about her professional sense-of-self as
a career educator, legitimating her position through 'a firm
belief' in the official discourses of the Ministry of Education and
Careers Services Rapuara. As Leigh re-tells her story, how she
'made it to an executive position' in the bank she joined
after leaving school; coped with changes in her personal life; and went
on to train as a teacher, her belief in a stable sense-of-self and the
value of experience resonates. Working in a girls' school, her
position as a mother with daughters also appears to have had an
influence on her approach to career education. For Leigh's
students, emphasis is placed on the notion of the self-managed career,
underpinned by a sense of self-awareness.

This is qualified by 'a firm belief in what the Ministry and
the Careers Service and everything else I see is saying that kids need
to understand themselves', though she expresses some concern that
not all students will be able to manage this successfully without help
from others. In the following excerpt, Leigh utilises the term
'we', presenting a unified and collective view, signifying
acceptance by other members of staff of her positioning of the students
as conscious active agents, able to assess risk and 'bank'
experiences:

So that's part of what we're saying to the girls is that
you need to be alert to things ... to be aware of what
strengths you've got and what risks you could happily
take ... [that] every day that you learn something
new, and take note of it, you might not need it for a
few years but you know you've got it.

With direct reference to social justice, the interconnectedness of
careers with self-awareness is central for Leigh.

This extract also demonstrates a subtle shift from Leigh as an
isolated actor, to one in which her views of self-empowerment, and
actions in support of this, are positioned as an integral aspect of the
character of her school. Leigh emphasises that if 'kids realise
that there are influences upon them', they will be in a position to
challenge and overcome these. A discursive shift occurs as she qualifies
this view, suggesting that little can be done for some students to
counteract the negative social influences they experience outside.

At times during our interview, Leigh presents a precarious and
contradictory identity that is in a constant state of flux (see Weedon,
1997) in the reflexive way she acknowledges uncertainty about particular
aspects of her self and her practice.

Social Class and Equality of Opportunity

While social class should not be seen in isolation to other aspects
of life, such as gender and/or ethnicity, a family's material
wealth (McLaren, 2007) and social contacts (Dale, 2000) can be seen to
mediate choice of career pathways, educational opportunities and
occupational entry. Where social class intersects and collides with
other areas of potential disadvantage, such as ethnicity and/or gender,
this adds a further complexity (Auerbach, 2007; Bradley, 1996; Jones,
2000).

Dominant educational discourses that reify the value of educational
credentials (Dale, 2000) encourage students to do well at school and
work hard to achieve academic qualifications (Higgins & Nairn,
2006), as this is presented as the pathway to material wellbeing and
personal success. Educational knowledge and school values are built
around 'regimes of truth' to which all should subscribe (Hall,
2001, citing Foucault, 1977). Yet the embedding of white patriarchal
middle-class values within the policies and practices of schooling
(Apple, 2001) acts to privilege particular social groups (McLaren,
2007), and can further marginalise those who are culturally different
(Barker & Irving, 2005) or already disadvantaged (Gillborn &
Youdell, 2000).

Leigh's particular interest in supporting under-performing,
disadvantaged and disaffected students is a common strand in her
narrative, cutting across her personal and professional life. For Leigh,
within the context of career education, equality is positioned as an
apolitical concept bound up with the need to overcome personal barriers:
to take responsibility for your actions; take control of your life; and
to pursue your passions. As Leigh reflects on her own life it is clear
that she herself has engaged these strategies to achieve her goals.

The relocating of career education within contemporary career
development discourses acts to position equality in terms of individual
access to opportunity (see McMahon & Tatham, 2003). This sits
comfortably with official discourses, where career education has a
responsibility to assist students to develop strategies that will enable
them to overcome potential barriers to opportunity (Ministry of
Education, 2003). Social class is positioned as a problem residing
within the student and as a product of their family background. The
career development gaze rests on the need for students to become
self-aware, self-motivated, self-promoting and competitive, acquiring
narrowly defined competencies within an educational-economic context.

Notions of the self-managed career are constructed as a
technical-rational process, underwritten by a humanist discourse
(Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997), driven by neo-liberal assumptions of
economic competitiveness and free-market values (Marshall, 2000).
Moreover, the privileging of occupation within career education has
pushed it onto the curriculum margins, weakening links with other
subject areas, particularly those that engage with social issues.

Leigh is aware of the influence of social class, as it had featured
in her own life. She recounted that, 'I would have liked to have
gone to university [after leaving school] but people in our family
didn't'. Here Leigh recognises that she had been positioned
within a discourse that gave primacy to employment over continued
education. As her personal circumstances changed, the importance
attached to education and qualifications reinforced Leigh's
understanding of class values, repositioning education as
'something that can never be taken away from you; [it is] a key to
open doors'. This perspective is also echoed in the importance she
attaches to credentials, commenting that 'it's all about
making sure that young people get the highest qualifications they can
... I really hammer "get the best education you can"'.

Looking closely at Leigh's transcript, it is possible to
identify ways in which she contextualises knowledge, and locates it
within appropriate settings. In her role as a social studies teacher,
Leigh implicitly discusses issues of social class (along with culture
and colonialism) in relation to the construction of poverty and its
impact. She also relates how one group of students felt that Trade Aid
should be supported and 'worked through the Board of Trustees, the
school health committee, the school council, and now this school is a
Trade Aid school'. Here, Leigh recounts ways in which collective
action can contribute to socially just change. While she comments that,
in careers, they talk about a range of issues related to the relative
importance attached to money, income and job choice, and 'the value
of contributing to society and things like that ... when we're
talking about what careers mean', she pauses and reflects, 'I
do think that that's a lot of what we do, those values are carried
with it. And are they white middle class values? What you're making
me do is think how much of this happens in my head and how much of it
actually happens?' Leigh begins to question the extent to which
class-related values, social concern and collective action is explicit
within career education, as she reflexively considers her practice.

On the surface, Leigh's desire to empower her students
'to live the life that they want' appears to be underwritten
by a depoliticised and class-free rhetoric. However, when discussing
teenage pregnancy, Leigh draws on moral, feminist and economic
discourses arguing, 'something that we've fought [against]
over a number of years is the prospect of young people being caught in
that whole poverty and benefit trap'. Here, Leigh occupies
contradictory subject positions concerning what is an acceptable way of
life, and assumptions that all teen pregnancies lead to disadvantage.

Delving deeper, Leigh is conscious of how social class acts to
restrict and influence the scope for choice and individual agency
(Higgins & Nairn, 2006). Drawing attention to the application of
'white middle-class measures, to measure how successful kids
are', Leigh reflects on ways class values permeate constructions of
educational success and access to support. This disconfirming challenge
to her belief in education is qualified as she diverts attention away
from the processes and practices of schooling.

Parents, Pacific Culture and Equality

Concepts of inequality can take many forms, and are embedded within
school practices, policies and institutions (Apple, 2001). Auerbach
(2007) makes an important point here, noting that:

parents come to schools with unequal resources for
pursuing educational goals and with complex raced/
classed/gendered identities, cultural scripts, and
family histories or dynamics that shape their relations
with institutions. (p. 276)

Dominant models of career practice located in Western world views
sit uncomfortably within some ethnic cultures (Barker & Irving,
2003; Malik & Aguado, 2005; Watson, 2006). While there is little
specific literature that discusses the role of parents within career
education, recent educational research suggests that some parents, such
as those from ethnic minority groups, are deemed as 'hard to
reach' (Auerbach, 2007; Crozier & Davies, 2007). Moreover,
where guidelines have been produced for parents outlining how they might
become more actively involved in their child's education, these
have a tendency to be generic in nature, built around dominant white
middle-class values (Auerbach, 2007; Crozier, 2001; Crozier &
Davies, 2007).

Parents appear to be regarded as an extension of the disciplinary
discourses of the school in relation to the behaviour of children and
themselves (Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997), with schools wanting parents
to take on their values and goals (Crozier, 1999). This is particularly
significant in relation to the cultural expectations and norms of school
and home. The potential challenges, contradictions and culture clashes
are highlighted in the Careers Services Rapuara (2008) guidelines, Role
of the Parent. Implicit assumptions are made about the working status of
parents, their social networks, and their potential to be
'good' role models with reference to cultural values, gendered
relations and social class.

In the context of this research, reference to liberal notions of
equality (linked with Western notions of education, qualifications and
opportunity) abound throughout the interview. Leigh sees the parents of
her Pasifika students as gatekeepers to opportunity. They are positioned
as a help through their demonstration of support for school-based
programs that re-engage disaffected Pasifika girls, and a hindrance when
the values they hold concerning their child's career conflict with
those of the school. While Leigh presents a balanced view of cultural
influence, this extract takes us beneath the surface:

We've set up a mentoring program so that these
[Pasifika] kids are working with students ... [from]
the University of ... who have quite fancibly had to
go through similar things, you know, how do I tell
my parents I don't want to do law?

Here, Leigh's desire to empower her students to challenge
perceived inequitable practices within culture and family appears to
echo her own past when, on leaving school, she 'would have liked to
have gone to university, but people in our family didn't'.
Leigh does engage with the need to recognise the cultural specificity of
Pasifika parents, by targeting career events at this particular group.
However, rather than engage in a culturally sensitive dialogue with
parents, the goal of the evenings appears to be to tell parents how they
should support the aspirations of 'their' children, and/ or
share with them 'their' children's successes. This
concept of the 'shared child', with regards to who is acting
in the child's best interests, appears to indicate a complex and
confused understanding that reflect tensions between home and school.

Leigh consciously attempts to position herself as impartial
regarding the cultural expectations that Pasifika parents might have for
their children, yet this contradicts her belief that individual students
should be free to follow the path that is right for them. Moreover,
while Leigh emphasises the importance of 'working with issues that
Pacific islands students confront in families and extended families who
have input into what they do', a polite silence resounds (see
Mazzei, 2007).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that Leigh's understanding of social
justice has been informed by personal experiences, her education as an
adult, a belief in gender equality, and a sense of herself as 'a
middle-class white woman' and a mother. Generally, she positions
herself and her school within a socially benevolent liberal discourse
(Tomlinson, 2001), with a responsibility to distribute limited resources
'fairly' (Ravels, 1971), reiterating a desire to help
individual students make the 'best' of their lives, by
accessing the opportunities on offer. This humanist turn reflects the
challenges Leigh has encountered and overcome at different stages of her
life, and is embedded within her career education practices. Yet these
are placed within a depoliticised discourse, with students simply
encouraged to 'follow their dreams', accessing help wherever
they can. Moreover, within her career education practice, the
relationship between the social studies and career curricula are
tenuous, restricting opportunity for critical discussion of ways in
which social, economic and political discourses inform constructions of
career and contribute to injustice. Echoes of neoliberalism are present
within career education, where individual responsibility and the
acquisition of skills and competencies that will help students to
succeed (Nairn & Higgins, 2007) are emphasised, regardless of any
cultural dissonance.

Yet Leigh does not completely subscribe to the notion of the heroic
individual (Barnes, 2004) who has total control of their life, valiantly
pursuing their career in the face of adversity. Contradictory
standpoints are expressed as she reflexively questions whether she is
'doing the right thing' for all of her students, acknowledging
that her own power and understanding is mediated by other social and
cultural variables that are at play (Weedon, 1997). Moreover, she
recognises that issues of class, race and gender can impact on career as
she reflects on whether the values embedded within her school privilege
particular groups.

For me, the findings highlight the ongoing confusion around what
constitutes career, and how social justice is understood. Questions
about the underlying philosophy and practice of career education remain.
I agree that students may well benefit by gaining the skills,
competencies and confidence required to manage their lives in an
unstable and constantly changing labour market through career
development activities. Yet should it serve as a replacement for career
education? I contend that career development activity must be
accompanied by, or regarded as an aspect of, a career education program
that is located within a broader context that questions dominant
economic rationalist models (Hyslop-Margison & McKerracher, 2008),
and cultural discourses that privilege particular social groups
(Kincheloe, 2008). This will allow for an educational approach that
supports reconstructed versions of career which are creative,
democratic, inclusive, holistic and socially just. As career educators,
I believe there is a need for us to critically reflect on our practices
and beliefs, and those of our institutions, thus uncovering the
influence of social, political and economic discourses which position
and shape concepts of self, work, career, opportunity and justice. If we
fail to rise to this challenge, given our privileged position as
curriculum gatekeepers, then what hope is there for the future?

THEORY AND PRACTICE

This section is designed as brief professional review of the
article. It provide relevant study questions and answers for readers to
test their knowledge of the article.

Why has little attention been given to social justice issues in
career education?

Answer: Career education has been subsumed into an individualistic
career development model that is focused on preparing students to
'self-manage' their future careers in relation to learning and
work. Economic and political imperatives overshadow social concerns.

What do the themes that emerged from the research tell us about
Leigh's approach to career education from a social justice
perspective?

Answer: While official policy documents inform her practice, this
is mediated by her past and present experiences which influence how she
sees and understands the world. Social justice is positioned as an
individual responsibility to fight for equality. It is also apparent
that social class impacts on opportunity in relation to the processes
and practices of schooling; that culture is primarily viewed from a
western perspective; and that families are seen to restrict and/ or
shape opportunity for some students and this is beyond the reach of
school.

What can a small-scale study tell us about the challenges for
career education? Answer: That while official policies inform career
education, how these are interpreted and put into practice is localised.
Therefore the findings, when considered alongside the literature,
provide us with a lens through which we can critically reflect on, and
review, our own practice.

What are the challenges for career education if a critical social
justice philosophy is to underpin practice?

Answer: There will be a need to develop career education policies,
programs and practices which positively recognise and engage with
collective and individual cultural and social difference(s). There is
also a need to facilitate critical learning about the economic, social
and political worlds, and how these inform constructions of work,
opportunity, self, career and justice. Practitioners need to adopt a
holistic understanding of career; consciously link with other curriculum
areas; and to be distinct from, yet related to, career development
practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr Karen Nairn at the University of
Otago School of Education for her helpful comments on an earlier version
of this article. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
interesting and challenging suggestions.

Barnes, A. (2004). Careers, citizenship and inclusion: A
perspective on schools. In Centre for Career & Personal Development
(Ed.), Careers education and citizenship: An inclusive agenda (pp.
35-43). Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University College.

Irving, B. A. (2005). Social justice: A context for career
education and guidance. In B. A. Irving and B. Malik (Eds.), Critical
reflections on career education and guidance: Promoting social justice
in a global economy (pp. 10-24). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Irving, B. A. (2009, June). When theory and practice are combined,
the fruit of this convergence is enlightenment. Paper presented at
Research Symposium: CPANZ & Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand.

McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical
pedagogy in the foundations of education. (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.

McMahon, M., Patton, W., & Tatham, P. (2003). Managing life,
learning and world in the 21st century: Issues informing the design of
an Australian blueprint for career development. Perth: Miles Morgan
Australia Pty Ltd.

McMahon, M. & Watson, M. (2007). An analytical framework for
career research in the post-modern era. International journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(3), 169-179.

Ministry of Education. (2003). Career education and guidance in New
Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.

BARRIE A. IRVING is a PhD student at the University of Otago
College of Education, New Zealand. His research is concerned with an
exploration into how social justice is understood within the context of
career education policies, programs and practices in New Zealand
secondary schools. Barrie has over 20 years experience in the careers
field, working as a practitioner, academic and researcher. Email:
irvba060@student.otago.ac.nz

COPYRIGHT 2009 Australian Council for Educational Research
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.